State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roshan Kumar vs Emerging India Housing Corporation ... on 9 April, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. SC/4/EA/158/2018
IN
SC/4/CC/110/2016
WITH
SC/4/IA/58/2026 (INTERIM RELIEF)
Roshan Kumar
PRESENT ADDRESS - ut,CHANDIGARH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
Emerging India Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
PRESENT ADDRESS - ut,CHANDIGARH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Roshan Kumar
DATED: 09/04/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Execution Application : 158 of 2018 Date of Institution : 16.05.2018 Date of Decision : 09.04.2026
1. Roshan Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Chand,
2. Pooja Garg W/o Sh. Roshan Kumar Resident of Aggarwal Book Depot, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.
....Decree Holders Versus
1. Emerging India Housing Corporation Ltd., SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009 through its Managing Director Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu 2nd Address:- B-57, Lower Ground, South Extension, New Delhi-49
2. Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director, Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd. SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009 2nd Address:- B-57, Lower Ground, South Extension, New Delhi-49
3. Sh.Kamaljit Singh, R/o H.No.26, Hira Bagu, Chaura, University, Patiala-147002, Punjab,. Director of Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd. SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (name deleted) .....Judgment Debtors/opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER Argued by:- Sh. Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for the Decree Holders.
Sh. Sonpreet Singh Brar, Advocate, counsel for the judgment debtor/Gurpreet Singh Sidhu.
Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, accused/Judgment debtor in custody (he is on bail in this case but has failed to furnish bail bond).
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The present execution application has been filed by the complainants/decree holders under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd. and its Managing Director, Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, for non-compliance of the order dated 11.01.2018 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.252 of 2017. Undisputedly, the said order dated 11.01.2018 has attained finality.
Background facts:-
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants/decree holders, namely Sh. Roshan Kumar and his wife-Pooja Garg, booked a flat in the project of the judgment debtors and paid a total amount of Rs.18,86,600/- during the period from 2011 to 2013. However, neither possession of the said flat was delivered nor was the amount paid, refunded by the opposite parties/judgment debtors. Consequently, they filed Consumer Complaint No.252 of 2017 before this Commission on 20.03.2020, which was partly accepted vide order dated 11.01.2018 (Ex.C-2) as under:-
"...14. For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is partly accepted, with costs. The opposite parties, jointly and severally, are directed as under:-
(i) To refund the amount of Rs.18,86,600/- to the complainants, alongwith interest @12% p.a., from the respective dates of deposits onwards.
(ii) To pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.1 lac, for causing mental agony and physical harassment, to the complainants, as also escalation in prices.
(iii) To pay cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.33,000/- to the complainants.
(iv) The payment of awarded amounts, in the manner mentioned at sr.nos.(i) to (iii), shall be made, within a period of 02 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the amount mentioned at sr.no.(i) shall carry penal interest @15% p.a., instead of @12%, from the date of filing of this complaint and interest @12% p.a., on the amounts mentioned at sr.nos.(ii) and (iii) also, from the date of filing of this complaint, till realization.
15. However, it is made clear that, if the complainants, have availed loan facility from any banking or financial institution, for making payment of installments towards the said unit, it shall have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by them (complainants)...."
3. Upto filing of the instant application, nothing was paid by the accused. At that time, Exh. C-3 (calculation sheet) was filed which depicts that an amount of Rs.39,52,129/- was due on 16.05.2018. It is further an undisputed fact that during the pendency of this execution application, the accused made the following payments to the decree holders:- Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.11.2018, Rs.1,50,000/- on 14.12.2018, Rs.10,20,000/- on 30.05.2019, Rs.7,00,000/- on 20.03.2022, Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.06.2022 and Rs.3 lacs on 12.03.2026. As such, total amount of Rs.28.70 lacs stood paid by the judgment debtors to the decree holders upto 12.03.2026. Complainant filed a revised calculation sheet Exh.C-3/A showing an amount of Rs.48,71,969/- is due as on 31.05.2025. However, as per the calculation sheet submitted by the accused Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, an amount of Rs.11,38,262/- was due as on 22.06.2022.
4. As both the calculations were inter-se different, therefore this Commission got prepared latest calculation sheet from the Accounts Branch of this Commission, which transpires that an amount of Rs.31,28,338.31 ps. was due (after adjusting the above said amounts paid during pendency of this execution application) to be payable by the judgment debtors to the decree holders as on 12.03.2026.
5. After going through the above referred calculation sheets, this Commission finds that the calculation sheet prepared by the Accounts Branch of this office appears to be correct. It is evident therefrom that the interest accrued on the principal amount has first been apportioned towards the interest component and thereafter adjusted towards the principal amount while taking into consideration each payment made by the accused, on different dates. This calculation is in line with the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India 2006 SC 2623 and BHEL v. R.S. Avtar Singh & Co. AIR 2013 SC 252 which speaks about rule of appropriation in execution of money decrees. As far as the calculation sheet submitted by the judgment debtor is concerned, the same cannot be accepted for the reason that no interest has been calculated after 22.06.2022 till date on the principal amount and also the compensation and litigation cost alongwith interest awarded thereupon, has also not been added. Accordingly, it is held that the judgment debtor is liable to make payment of Rs.31,28,338.31 ps. as on 12.03.2026.
6. Despite the order dated 11.01.2018 (Ex.C-2) having attained finality, the same was not complied with as aforesaid, within the stipulated period despite adequate opportunities having been granted to the judgment debtors/accused. Consequently, the accused failed to comply with the said order in its entirety. As such, the present execution application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed seeking punishment of the accused for non-compliance of the order and for recovery of the decreetal amount payable to the decree holders.
Procedure adopted by this Commission during the trial:-
7. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to mention here that this Commission has adopted due procedure as in a criminal complaint under the provisions of Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and also as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble National Commission in Rajnish Kumar Rohatgi and another Versus M/s Unitech Limited and anr. EA No.80 of 2016 decided on 08.01.2019 as well as the procedure provided under the Act, 1986, as under:-
1. Show cause notice was issued to the Accused-Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu vide order dated 21.08.2018, in terms of Section 262 of Cr.P.C. read with Chapter XX and Section 251 of Cr.P.C
2. Accused-Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu was summoned as accused under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, 1986 and on his appearance, he was supplied the copies of entire paper book, free of cost.
3. On 22.09.2021, the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu gave statement that he is the Managing Director of the company and that he has already received the copies of the execution application documents attached therewith through his counsel.
4. On 01.10.2021 the accused was heard on the point of substance of accusation under the provisions of section 251 of Cr.P.C. 1973, and a prima facie case was made out against him.
As such, substance of accusation was stated to him on 01.10.2021 i.e. on the same day, but he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, the complainant was asked to produce his evidence.
5. On 04.02.2022 Examination-in-chief of the complainant(s) was recorded and his cross examination was concluded by this Commission on 11.03.2022. In order to prove their case, they tendered into evidence documents, his detailed affidavit (Exh. C-1), the order dated 11.01.2018 (Exhibit C-2), calculation sheet dated 16.05.2018 (Exhibit C-3) and the latest calculation sheet dated 11.07.2025 (Exhibit C-3A) was filed, copy of which was supplied to the counsel opposite. They categorically stated that all the payments have been made to the Accused-Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu and some amounts have been paid after availing housing loan from Axis Bank
6. This Commission directed accused to produce defence evidence on their own responsibility but no evidence was produced.
7. Thereafter, the accused closed his defence evidence on 12.03.2026.
8. Arguments of both parties were heard at length. Learned counsel for the complainants/decree holders submitted that the decreetal order 11.01.2018 (Ex.C-2) was passed on 11.08.2021 and till date the same has not been complied with, in totality and still an amount of Rs.31,28,338.31 with future interest is payable by the judgment debtors. It was further submitted that the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu was responsible for running the day-to-day affairs of the company and was therefore rightly impleaded in the capacity of Managing Director in the consumer complaint bearing no.252 of 2017. Despite the decree passed as far as back in 2018, the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu failed to comply with the order and thus he is liable to be punished under the stringent provisions of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has also been contended that the accused transferred the land of the project in question in a fraudulent and clandestine manner in favour of his father-in-law Sh. Gurvinder Singh Chahal, which clearly indicates his intention to defeat the decree.
9. On the other hand, learned defence counsel as well as accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu submitted that he is facing financial crunch and has already deposited certain amounts on different dates upto 12.03.2026 totalling Rs.28.70 lacs and at present, he is not in a position to make further payment to the decree holders.
10. In view of the pleadings and material available on record, the following points arise for determination:-
(i) whether the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu failed to comply with the order in terms of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986;
(ii) whether the complainants have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt; and
(iii) whether the accused is liable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. The observations and findings of this Commission are given below.
Point (i)= Whether the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu failed to comply with the order in terms of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986?
12. To discuss the evidence on this point, it is necessary in the outset to go through the provisions of Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, which reads as under:-
27. Penalties.--
(1) Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is made or the complainant fails or omits to comply with any order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, such trader or person or complainant shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousands rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(3) All offences under this Act may be tried summarily by the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be.
13. A careful and plain reading of Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 clearly reflects that the legislature, in its wisdom, has incorporated stringent penal provisions to ensure effective enforcement of the orders passed by the Consumer Commissions constituted under the Act. These provisions are criminal in nature, and this Commission has been vested with the powers of a Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is further provided that any person who fails or omits to comply with an order of the Consumer Commissions shall be liable to punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than one month, which may extend up to three years. In addition to, or in the alternative, such person may also be subjected to a fine not less than two thousand rupees, which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. The provision has been enacted with the object of deterring willful non-compliance and maintaining the sanctity and enforceability of the consumer redressal mechanism. Accordingly, this Commission is duly empowered to try and adjudicate matters involving offences under the said provisions.
14. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the order dated 11.01.2018 (Ex.C-2) was passed against the company-Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd. of which the accused is the Managing Director. However, the same has not been fully complied with, for a prolonged period of more than 8 years. Despite being afforded several opportunities by this Commission, the accused failed to comply with the said order, in totality and as stated above, still an amount of Rs.31,28,338.31 with future interest is payable by the judgment debtors. The decree holders have been compelled to pursue the execution of the decree for an unreasonably long period and have been deprived of the fruits of the judgment.
15. Even as per his own calculation sheet, the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu has admitted liability of Rs.11,38,262/- as on 22.06.2022 which admittedly has not been paid till date. Therefore, the accused- Gurpreet Singh Sidhu has failed to comply with the order dated 11.01.2018 (Ex.C-2) in totality and is liable under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. This execution was filed on 13.05.2018 alongwith calculation sheet Ex C-3,showing an amount of Rs.39,52,129/- is due towards the accused. Upto that date, nothing was paid to the complainants/decree holders. The interest awarded is 15% p.a. on principal amount of Rs.18,86,600/- w.e.f. 11.03.2018 and for the prior period it was 12% p.a. from the dates of respective payments. Thus, the interest shall be counted @15% p.a. w.e.f. 17.05.2018. The accused, though, has paid certain amounts during the pendency of this execution application, but he fully failed to comply with the order of this Commission, in totality. Surprisingly, on 11.03.2022, as oral settlement made by the applicant- Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu to the effect that as per the oral compromise arrived at between the parties, against the total decreetal amount of Rs.35 lacs, he is ready to make payment of Rs.7 lacs each after gap of every 45 days from the payment of first installment. However, there is nothing on record that thereafter any payment has been made by him to the complainant(s)/decree holder(s). As stated above, only an amount of Rs.28.70 lacs has been paid, whereas, as stated above, still an amount of Rs.31,28,338.31 ps. is pending to be paid by him to the decree holders
16. Thus, point no.(i) stands answered accordingly, in favour of the complainants/decree holders.
Point No.(ii) Whether the complainants/decree holders proved their case beyond shadow of any doubt?
17. The documentary evidence placed on record remains unchallenged and duly proved. The accused has been afforded the opportunity to cross examine the witness and to adduce evidence but he failed to produce any defence evidence. The accused did not produce any defence evidence except he placed on the record his own calculation sheet showing an amount of Rs.11,38,262/- due as on 22.06.2022.. Even the amount admitted by the accused in his own calculation sheet, has not been paid since June 2022 except for Rs.3 lakhs paid on 12.03.2026. Therefore, this Commission finds that the complainant/decree holders have proved their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Point (iii):- Whether the accused is liable under Section 27 of CPA 1986?
18. It is manifest from the overall circumstances and facts brought on record that the accused has consciously and deliberately failed to honor the binding order dated 11.01.2018 (Ex.C-2). The intention to defeat the legal mandate and avoid the liability imposed by the decree is clearly established. Therefore, this conduct attracts penal consequences as envisaged under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
19. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Commission is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt to the home of accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu is held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He stands convicted under the said provision accordingly.
20. Let the accused, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu be heard on the question of sentence.
Pronounced 09.04.2026 Sd/-
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT Sd/-
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER Rg.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Execution Application : 158 of 2018
Date of Institution : 16.05.2018
Date of Decision : 09.04.2026
1. Roshan Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Chand,
2. Pooja Garg W/o Sh. Roshan Kumar
Resident of Aggarwal Book Depot, Nabha Gate, Sangrur.
...Decree Holders
Versus
1. Emerging India Housing Corporation Ltd., SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009 through its Managing Director Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu 2nd Address:- B-57, Lower Ground, South Extension, New Delhi-49
2. Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Managing Director, Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd. SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160009 2nd Address:- B-57, Lower Ground, South Extension, New Delhi-49
3. Sh.Kamaljit Singh, R/o H.No.26, Hira Bagu, Chaura, University, Patiala-147002, Punjab,. Director of Emerging India Housing Corporation (P) Ltd. SCO 46-47, Sector 9-D, Near Mattka Chowk, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh (name deleted) .....Judgment Debtors/opposite parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER Argued by:-
Sh. Shubham Bhardwaj, Advocate, counsel for the Decree Holders.
Sh. Sonpreet Singh Brar, Advocate, counsel for the judgment debtor/Gurpreet Singh Sidhu.
Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, convict (in custody).
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT ORDER OF SENTENCE We have heard the accused-Gurpreet Singh Sidhu) on the question of sentence. He pleads innocence and also pleads for lenient view.
The plight and suffering of the decree holders, who have been forced to engage in prolonged litigation for enforcement of a lawful order, cannot be understated. The conduct of the accused reflects a deliberate, intentional, and contumacious defiance of the lawful directions of this Commission. The persistent inaction and failure to comply are not attributable to any plausible reason or unavoidable circumstance. No cogent explanation or justification has been provided by the accused to explain the inordinate delay and non-compliance. Rather, it appears to be a case of willful disobedience and blatant disregard of the authority of the adjudicating body. This Commission will also take into consideration the fact that accused have made the payment during the pendency of this execution a total amount of Rs.28.70 lacs. However, the accused is not entitled for benefit of probation.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the accused i.e. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment, for further period of one month.
It is made clear that the period already undergone by the accused-Sh.Gurpreet Singh Sidhu while in custody as under-trial, in this case, shall be set-off from the substantive sentence. This period be verified from the Jail Records.
Copy of this order be supplied to the accused and also to other parties, free of cost, forthwith.
Commitment/Sentence warrants be sent to the Jail Superintendent.
Pronounced 09.04.2026 Sd/-
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT Sd/-
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER Rg ..................
JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI PRESIDENT ..................
PREETINDER SINGH MEMBER